On 27/06/2025 11:28, Roberto A. Foglietta wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 at 12:03, Harald van Dijk <[email protected]> wrote:
On 27/06/2025 10:45, Roberto A. Foglietta wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 at 00:35, Harald van Dijk <[email protected]> wrote:
That doesn't sound quite right. Any applet that uses system() or
get_shell_name() should run a busybox-internal shell when the user
account is not specifically configured to use a different shell, agreed
so far.
There is no "user account" and there is nothing apart from a busybox
static binary, in principle. This is the **main** concept of a
standalone busybox, being the WHOLE system apart from the kernel which
in a broader view, does not necessarily be a Linux kernel.
Nothing about this patch set removes the concept of user accounts, nor
the Linux kernel. It seems like you've got some idea in your head about
what this patch set is for that is not connected to what these patches
actually do.
And if you want to engage with some AI thing to contribute to this
discussion, I can't stop you, but it's downright offensive to say that
any contribution to this that doesn't first go through that same AI
thing is a waste of everyone's time.
You might be right on everything you wrote above. Then:
s/patch/patchset/
and you are not anymore, but criticize a patch forgetting the patchset.
My message was not about this individual patch, but about the patch set.
I literally wrote "this patch set" and "these patches", and I believe it
to be accurate: nothing about any patch in this patch set removes the
concept of user accounts or the Linux kernel, so the patch set has to
work even when user accounts are present.
However, I agree with your implicit suggestion that reality will be
the ultimate judge that will settle down this dispute which confirms
my idea that a fork is the best way to go in terms of results,
whatever they would be gold or poop. After all, freedom is also about
the availability of an alternative, right? LOL
Best regards with my full signature because I always consider a
personal attack as a personal matter,
The only attack in this thread has been by you when you pre-emptively
called replies that don't go through AI chat a waste of people's time.
It is in no way a personal attack to express that I take offence to that.
Cheers,
Harald van Dijk
_______________________________________________
busybox mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
